Cannabis oil is a highly efficient natural cancer cure

(NaturalNews) Ever since the mid 70s, medical scientists have been well aware of the beneficial effects of cannabinoid compounds over cancerous cells. Thanks to modern science, over a dozen studies conducted during recent years have been able to partially reveal just how it works. Yet cannabis is still not endorsed by pharmaceutical companies as a cancer cure, and since it is not promoted through mainstream channels, very few people are aware of its benefits. Consequently, it is not sought after as an alternative to disfiguring chemotherapy and other harmful drugs.

Laboratory tests conducted in 2008 by a team of scientists formed as a joint research effort between Spain, France and Italy, and published in The Journal Of Clinical Investigation, showed that the active ingredient in marijuana, known as tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, can function as a cure for brain cancer by inducing human glioma cell death through stimulation of autophagy.

The study concluded that via the same biochemical process THC could terminate multiple types of cancers, affecting various cells in the body. Other studies have shown that cannabinoids may work by various mechanisms, including inhibiting cell growth, inducing cell death, and inhibiting tumor metastasis.

What is amazing is that while cannabinoids effectively target and kill cancerous cells, they do not affect healthy, normal cells and may actually protect them against cellular death. Moreover, cannabinoids are also researched for their pain-modulation and anti-inflammatory abilities as they bind to special receptors in the brain, much like opioid derivatives that are commonly prescribed today.

Further evidence to support the effects of cannabis extract on malignant cells comes from the real life experience of individuals who have successfully overcome cancer by using cannabis oil. Examples include a patient, who managed to completely cure his skin cancer by simply applying cannabis oil onto the affected areas of the skin, as well as another, who recovered from a severe head injury with the aid of hemp oil.

One of the cannabinoids that has displayed amazing medical properties is cannabidiol, or CBD - a non-psychoactive compound that is regarded by some as the medical discovery of the 21st century, and with good reason. Research indicates that CBD can relieve convulsions, reduce inflammation, lower anxiety and suppress nausea, while also inhibiting cancer development. In addition, CBD has exhibited neuroprotective properties, relieving symptoms of dystonia and proving just as effective as regular antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.

What stands out is that from the vast amount of research and data available, as well as the personal experiences of cancer survivors, is that no chemotherapy currently being used medically can match the non-toxic anti-carcinogenic and anti-tumorigenic effects of these natural plant compounds.

Sources for this article include:

http://safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948
http://dotsub.com/media/fc4e051a-1709-4e63-8a2c-912b09486c9f/e/m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

Early success in cancer drug trial gives patients 'promising' future

A London hospital’s trial of a prostate cancer drug has been stopped early because it was so successful doctors felt it would be "unethical" to deny the treatment to other patients.

By Edward Malnick ~ 24 Sep 2011 ~ London Telegraph

Medics halted tests of the life-extending drug because it would have been “unethical” not to offer the treatment to all 922 cancer sufferers taking part in the trial.

Patients who were given the drug found that it eased pain and caused only minor side effects.

The new drug accurately targets tumours using alpha radiation, which doctors conducting the study said is the most effective form of radiation to eliminate cancer because it limits damage to surrounding tissue.

Dr Chris Parker, lead researcher on the project at the Royal Marsden Hospital, said: “It’s more damaging. It takes one, two, three hits to kill a cancer cell compared with thousands of hits for beta particles.”

The drug, Radium-223 Chloride – known as Alpharadin TM – will also do less damage to surrounding tissue because it accurately targets calls, the doctors said.

Speaking at an international gathering of cancer experts, Dr Parker, a consultant clinical oncologist, said: “They have such a tiny range, a few millionths of a metre. So we can be sure that the damage is being done where it should be.”

Patients taking the drug has a 30% lower rate of death compared to patients taking a placebo pill.

“It would have been unethical not to offer the active treatment to those taking placebo,” Dr. Parker said.

Radium-223 has “a completely different safety profile” to chemotherapy, he added.

The trial’s results were presented this week at the 2011 European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress in Stockholm.

The researchers, who have pointed out the urgent need for an effective treatment for prostate cancer, will now submit their findings for approval by regulators.

Prof Gillies McKenna, Cancer Research UK’s radiotherapy expert said: “This appears to be an important study using a highly targeted form of radiation to treat prostate cancer that has spread to the bones.

“This research looks very promising and could be an important addition to approaches available to treat secondary tumours – and should be investigated further.”

Cell Phones and Cancer: the Risk is Real

An Interview with Devra Davis
By RUSSELL MOKHIBER

There is a book you ought to buy.

It's called Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family by Devra Davis (Dutton, 2010).

Buy it from a book store – if you can find a book store that carries it.

Davis said that when the book was published in September 2010, she traveled to San Francisco, a hot bed of calls for right to know legislation when it comes to cell phone radiation.

"When I went there, I found out that no book store in the city had my book," Davis told Corporate Crime Reporter last week.

Has there been an explanation for that?

"The publishers are saying the book stores just aren't buying it," Davis said.

"This book has sold the fewest copies of any book I have written. And for non fiction, my books sold reasonably well."

"I don't have the time to know what is happening, but I smell a rat."

Davis is convinced that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer.

She is convinced by the evidence.

"Today, there is no debate that x-rays directly disturb electrons, break their bonds, disrupt the making of proteins, and impede the ability of cells to fix damage," Davis writes. "And yet there has not been much debate about the potential dangers of radiation from cell phones. It's been assumed that they are safe."

Thus, the "disconnect" from the title of her book.

What is your explanation as to why there is that disconnect?

"We know there is a big difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation," Davis says. "And cell phone radiation is non-ionizing."

"There is a paradigmatic conflict between the way the world of physics and the way the world of biology understands the nature of non-ionizing radiation."

"At its core, the physics paradigm believed as a matter of faith that it was physically impossible for the weak radiation from cell phones to have any biological effect."

"This belief was wrong 40 years ago. And that was shown by the work of Allan Frey. But because of this belief and because it was convenient to believe it, cell phones have never been tested for safety."

So, your explanation for the disconnect is money and power?

"Those are terms you can use," Davis said. "I can say that it proved to be very convenient because there is just about 100 percent use of cell phones for adults. In fact, in Australia, there is more than one phone per person. These are convenient devices. And it proved to be too inconvenient to deal with the fact that holding a small microwave radio next to your brain for hours a day is not a good idea."

"We know that brain cancer can take at least ten years to develop from the first exposure," Davis said. "It has a latency period of at least ten years on average. We know that because a few studies have been done on heavy cell phone users. And those studies have found that they have a doubled or greater risk of brain tumors after ten years of use."

What convinces Davis that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer?

"The first is the compelling biological studies done in cell cultures – human cell cultures – and looking at how they respond to pulsed digital signals from cell phone radiation," Davis says.

"And in particular, recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence is negative in large part because the preponderance of the evidence has been sponsored by industry."

"In the upcoming paperback edition, my book will have an afterward. In it, I say that in 1994, after Henry Lai and his colleague Narenda Singh produced a finding that pulsed digital signals from cell phone radiation could damage DNA in the brains of animals exposed to cell phone radiation, the industry mounted a full court press."

"When the abstract of that finding showing DNA damage from pulsed digital signals was produced, the industry went to the agency that funded the work – the National Institutes of Health – and accused the investigators of fraud and misuse of funds.

Davis says that this story has been told by Louis Slesin of Microwave News – before her book was published.

But it didn't make it into her hard cover book.

She says the story will appear in the afterward to the soon to be published paperback edition of her book.

We ask her why it didn't make it into the hard cover edition of her book.

She hesitates.

Then says – "I can't answer that."

She won't explain what she means.

But the hard cover book is filled with stories like that of Franz Adlkofer – a former tobacco researcher who had a falling out with the tobacco industry.

He too didn't believe that cell phone radiation could damage living cells – until he did the tests.

"They first got results suggesting that cell phone radiation could have an effect on the DNA inside certain types of cells," Davis says.

"Adlkofer thought for sure there was a mistake. Adlkofer believed that it was physically impossible for cell phone radiation to have a biological effect. That was the dogma. And that dogma was shared widely. But he relished the opportunity to set up these big lab studies. He coordinated twelve labs looking at the basic functioning of cells."

"They repeated the tests and got the same results."

"So, he thought – we must have the wrong equipment – our equipment isn't good. So, having a lot of money, they went out and bought new equipment to do the testing."

"After repeating the results – these were twelve different labs working independently – he concluded that it looked like the radiation was having an effect. He concluded it had a very damaging effect on DNA, causing it to unravel."

Davis tells the somewhat complex story of how the industry went after Adlkofer, how he fought back to vindicate his study.

Davis says that brain cancer is a rare disease – right now it's 6 in 100,000 in the United States – still twice the rate of the developing world.

"But if the rate of brain cancer goes from 6 per 100,000 to 18 per 100,000, well, that's a tripling of the rate."

And you are expecting that, right?

"Yes," she says. "But it is not going to happen until I'm dead. That's why I wrote the book."

So, in a nutshell, what is your advice for consumers?

"Do not keep the phone on your body," Davis says. "Men should not keep it in their front pocket or in their breast pocket. Fine print warnings come with all of these phones. Nobody reads them. They toss them away."

"Never hold a cell phone next to your head. Use a speaker phone. Use an ear piece."

What about policies the government should pursue?

"The government should be issuing safe use guidelines about this right now. Other governments have done this."

What about our government, why hasn't our government done this?

"I'm filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit today. I am requesting information about why the FCC changed its web site overnight to correspond to the position of industry."

"I was told that there were two memos explaining the reasons – but they said they weren't going to give them to me. Jim Turner is filing the lawsuit for us pro bono."

[For the complete Interview with Devra Davis, see 25 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(11), April 11, 2011, print edition only.]

Corn byproduct fructose literally fuels cancer cell growth, study finds

By Reuters | Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."

Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.

Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda.

The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.

Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.

"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.

U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.